Showing posts with label Dick Cheney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dick Cheney. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

The Unbearable Darkness of Being Dick Cheney

by Sunnyjane

Jay Carney: Which president was he talking about?
The Gospel According to Dick Cheney is that President Barack Obama is everything from a naive weakling to a downright fool.  Oh, and the President would rather give people food stamps than build a strong military.  I"m sure it comes as no surprise to anyone who isn't tuned into Fox Noise 24/7 or addicted to the Drudge Report that the United States has the strongest military in the world.  And speaking of Drudge, how did he respond to the recent capture of the Benghazi consulate attack suspect?  He didn't.  Instead, his loyal readers were treated to a paragraph or two on the rising cost of meat, chicken, and fish.  No, really.

A brief background check of the former vice president is appropriate here.  Cheney has been skulking around conservative politics since the 1960s, and served as Gerald Ford's Chief of Staff during his brief tenure as president.  He went from there to being a five-term congressman from Wyoming, and afterward served as Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush, during which time he spearheaded the military action to defend Kuwait from Iraq's determination to annex that tiny country.  When Bill Clinton beat Bush One in the next election, Cheney hustled over to Halliburton to be chairman and CEO.  We all know how THAT turned out during the Bush Two incursion into Iraq.  When W won the election in 2000, he decided to gather many of his father's men together to help him steer the ship of state, so to speak.  I'm sure he thought it was a dandy idea, because he knew absolutely nothing about being a leader.  Bush had put Cheney in charge of finding a proper running mate for him, and Cheney decided he himself would be the best vice president in the whole wide world. 

It pays to have contacts.  In fact, it pays VERY well, indeed.
Cheney flunked out of Yale twice because he had a hard time adjusting to the school.  He finally got a bachelors degree in arts and a masters degree in political science from the University of Wyoming.  This rather lengthy college career suited him well, as he was able to get four student deferments to keep him out of Vietnam because I had other priorities in the '60s than military service.  It is inferred by some, um, liberal cynics that his first child, Liz, owes her life to the Vietnam war; she was born nine months and two days after it was announced that only fathers could dodge the draft be granted deferments. 

So let's just charge ahead and see who the fool is in this Middle East mess that the Cheney Bush administration created.

Hey, Guys, Let's Start a War with Iraq!
 
Hail, hail, the gang's all here!
In classic GOP style, the hypocrisy runs rampant.  In 1994, after the Kuwait/Iraq war, then-Secretary of Defense Cheney was questioned about why the U.S. didn't just go onto Iraq and take down Saddam Hussein's government  while we were there.  His response showed a distinct sanity: ...then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off.  Twenty years later, however, he's taking great delight in snarling that President Obama has abandoned Iraq and we are watching American defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.  [Victory?]  I guess Cheney forgot that it was George W. Bush who signed the Status of Forces Agreement, which literally threw the U.S. out of Iraq, before he left office. Cheney's op-ed rant prompted Harry Reid to respond, If there is one thing this country does not need is that we should be taking advice from Dick Cheney on wars. Being on the wrong side of Dick Cheney is being on the right side of history. 

All GOP Roads Led to Iraq

 
The popular spin from the 2003 White House is that Bush decided to declare war on Iraq for retaliation for 9/11.  They also pushed that they were protecting America's oil interests.  And that Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction.  And that Osama Bin Laden was hiding there.  And that the Iraqis had kidnapped Santa Claus -- you name it, there were plenty of reasons for the invasion, and any of 'em, all of 'em would do.

The truth, however, is much creepier.  According to a great 2004 article, in which W.'s biographer is quoted extensively, Bush-the-candidate was making plans in 1999 to invade Iraq: One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.  My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.  If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.  After 9/11, of course, he had a reason no one would argue with, and the rest is a sorry history.

Bush lied to the American people and to our allies.  The weapons inspectors had found no weapons of mass destruction.  He and his staff, including Dick Cheney, had ignored a series of urgent and potentially disastrous CIA reports that bin Laden was planning an imminent attack on the United States.

Vice President Dickless Cheney sleeps through CIA briefings.
They wanted to go into Iraq, and go into Iraq they did.

Mission Accomplished -- NOT

Twenty-one days after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, George W. Bush landed with tawdry drama on an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego and declared that the mission in Iraq had been accomplished.  It's hard to say what that accomplishment was, since Saddam Hussein wasn't even captured until seven months later.  Cheney sat in his West Wing office grinning like a fool at the whole phoney spectacle.

It's 2014, Iraq Begins to Implode, and the Right Goes Nuts

I'm too chicken to fight in a real battle, so I'll growl real loud and frighten the President to death.

Like rabid hyenas, the big talkers came roaring out of their flea-infested dens and decided to chew the hide off President Obama.  Chief amongst this pack of Feliformia suborders was Dick Cheney, trying for all his worth to rewrite history and regain some of the respect he never had in the first place.  It hasn't worked out very well for him.

The internet has a long memory, and some in the mainstream media -- including, oddly enough, Fox News -- and a long list of liberal bloggers have taken him on for his barefaced lies and blatant hypocrisy.

The New York Times: This, from the man who helped lead us into this trumped-up war, searching for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, a war in which some 4,500 members of the American military were killed, many thousands more injured, and that is running a tab of trillions of dollars.       

The Washington Post:  When it comes to being wrong about Iraq, Dick Cheney has been in a class by himself. It was Cheney who said, “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Just last week, Cheney stated that Barack Obama has stated repeatedly the terrorist threat is gone, we got bin Laden. That’s clearly not the case. That’s not the truth.

What the President very clearly said, on May 1, 2011: The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda. Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will — remain vigilant at home and abroad. 

When called out by Jonathan Karl recently for saying that the President is deliberately trying to undermine America's global standing, Cheney danced the backward shuffle and said that he meant no disrespect.  Uh huh.

Give your useless new heart a rest, Dick, and let the adults handle the situation.  You screwed up the country once; no one is going to let you do it again.

And a little bonus:  Kevin McCarthy, the new House Majority Leader, is also clueless on the subject.  When asked by Chris Wallace what the President should do about the situation in Iraq, McCarthy used the word strategy about fifty times and came up empty.  

End Note

   


 

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Ending Gun Violence: "Today is Day One"

by Sunnyjane



At the conclusion of her Farewell to the 112th Congress show on January 4, Rachel Maddow spoke touchingly about the Newtown massacre and compared the 113th Congress's being sworn in to the first day of school: The president says he wants national action to stop gun violence.  Can this Congress do it?  Today is Day One.

Guns!  America Needs More Guns!


With cockeyed optimism, American gun control proponents were naive enough -- and hopeful enough -- to take Wayne LaPierre at his word when he said in a statement on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings: The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.    

So it came to pass that on the one-week anniversary of that horrific day, and ninety minutes after a national moment of silence in memory of the victims, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association literally stunned the world with his pronouncements at a packed press conference.  So atrocious were LaPierre's meaningful contributions that even the conservative Murdoch-owned New York Post was appalled. 


The NRA spends millions of dollars a year to ensure that no adequate gun legislation ever gets introduced in the House, much less passed.  Until legislators in both the House and Senate have the guts to turn their backs on this repressive lobbying organization, the current $3.5 Billion gun industry will continue to grow, and Americans will continue to die from Second Amendment freedoms.

Bad Guys with Guns vs. Good Guys with Guns

A gun is made to kill, and it takes no distinguishing interest in who is pulling the trigger.  By whose definition shall we tell the difference between who is good and who is bad before it is too late?  

The oopsie defense works in a court of law, but it will not resurrect the seven-year-old boy who was accidentally shot to death by his father, who thought his hand gun was not loaded.  Nor did it save the father recently shot and killed in Virginia by his thirteen-year-old son, who mistook him for a deer.

Money and positions of power do not make gun owners immune to mistakes and accidents.   In February 2006, then-Vice President Dick Cheney shot and wounded an acquaintance, seventy-eight-year-old Harry Whittington, while quail hunting.  

Whittington after being shot by Dick Cheney
Two days after the accident, the injured man suffered a non-fatal silent heart attack due to at least one lead-shot pellet lodged in or near his heart.

Both men were long-time hunters and members of the NRA.

Dick Cheney with Wayne LaPierre (to his right) and Kayne Robinson, NRA President (H/T Sleuth1)
Being a good guy does not prevent gun violence by people who can easily take advantage of a gun in the home, per the massacre in Newtown on December 14, 2012.

How the House Will Deal with Gun Control Legislation


End Note


I strongly suggest that before the representatives in the House vote  on a bill to ban semi-automatic weapons that they be required to attend a closed-door meeting and see the police photos of the Sandy Hook Elementary School victims.  Perhaps actually coming face-to-face with the bodies of twenty six-and-seven year olds who were shot -- some as many as eleven times -- will have a positive effect on how they vote to ban those horrible weapons.

But I doubt it.


End Note 2

January 9, 2013: In the twenty-five days since the gun massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, 695 Americans have been killed by guns.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Ratings and The Yellow Journalism of Fox News 1/2


by Nomad
At the turn of the century, writers searching for the soul of America looked at the country through the new lenses and found much to criticize. While the nation had become a world power with a great navy and mounting wealth, the journalists sought to prove that much of the wealth was gained through cheap labor that kept the laboring class subservient, poor and unhealthy.

Millionaires... had developed a powerful economy enjoyed by the few. What rights should workers have? What education should be afforded child laborers? What quality and safety were afforded the working class in their homes, their food? Through the lens of these news ideologies, early twentieth century journalists re-examined the relationships among politicians, business tycoons, and laborers.
The Public Press, 1900-1945: The History of American Journalism, by Leonard Ray Teel
That quote refers to a time over a hundred years ago - fondly called the Progressive Era- and yet what has changed since that golden age of journalism? In some ways, America as a nation is stuck in the right-turn lane. 
A full century has passed and the battle between the wealthy- now super-wealthy- and the middle laboring class- now called the 99%- has re-commenced. Or has it ever really ended?
One essential difference is, of course, the state of American journalism- the once disinterested crusader for the people’s interests. The press- along with the promise of reform it once represented- has been absorbed into the system and what's left when the capitalists got through with it is, well,  Fox News and CNN. Journalism's last remaining refuge is the Internet and even that  has lately become the target of  corporate control and legislative suppression. 

It’s to be expected. As soon diversified multi-national corporations took over the business of news reporting, that fundamental impartiality- key to unbiased coverage- dissolved. Truth has not just taken a backseat. It had been forced to ride on the roof.

After all, how can journalists be allowed to examine the complicated relationships of politicians, tycoons when the tycoons and political players are the bosses. Fox News president Roger Ailes, for example, was once a media strategist for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. presidential campaigns. Speaking about the job, he announced:
We’d like to restore objectivity where we find it lacking and certainly there could be that interpretation because of my background but I left politics a number of years ago and have running this organization for the last two years. So we just expect to do fine, balanced journalism.
Well, we have seen where that went. Even then, it goes far deeper than that.

The Voice Rarely Heard
News Corporation’s owner Rupert Murdoch’s relationship with Tony Blair was summed up by Lance Price, a Blair’s media adviser to from 1998 and 2001, Rupert Murdoch, he writes, "seemed like the 24th member of the cabinet. His voice was rarely heard ... but his presence was always felt." 
Much has been said about Murdoch’s influence in politics, not much has been favorable. Lesser known is Murdoch’s business relationship with Dick Cheney and the Rothschilds. Media Matters reports:
Murdoch joined the "strategic advisory board" of Genie Energy and purchased an equity stake in Genie Oil and Gas, which consists of Genie Energy's interests in oil shale initiatives on federal land in Western Colorado and in Israel's Elah Valley.
Genie Energy -- which is a division of IDT Corporation, a global telecommunications company -- has attracted several other high-profile advisers and investors, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, Lord Jacob Rothschild, and Michael Steinhardt, a prominent hedge fund investor and philanthropist.
(Only a man like Murdoch could connect the Rothschilds- whose family foundation actually gave the Knesset and the Supreme Court buildings to Israel -with News Corporation’s second largest shareholder, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talat. That, in itself, a remarkable bit of maneuvering. After all, The Prince gave a reported $27 million in cash to help the families of Palestinian "martyrs"- meaning suicide bombers.)
Frank Rich’s brilliant article in New York Magazine sums up the philosophy behind the Murdoch empire thus:
This ethos would never be tolerated for long at most public companies, but News Corp. is a faux-public company thanks to the Murdochs’ special tier of controlling shares. What’s being illuminated daily by the News of the World revelations in London are the broad parameters, still sketchily filled in, of News Corp.’s definition of business-as-usual: the compulsive lying (James Murdoch’s testimony before Parliament is of a piece with that interview Rupert gave to the Times in 1976); the wholesale buying of police and politicians; the thuggery employed to invade the privacy of cheesy celebrities and the 13-year-old murder victim Milly Dowler alike to pump newspaper sales; and the dizzying array of cover-ups, from the sham News Corp. “investigations” and “independent committees” to the hush money that rains down on victims, discarded employees, and cops.
That’s just the British investigation. Imagine what the picture looks like on the other side of the pond. (Of course, considering all his influence and all of the weaknesses of Washington, that kind of investigation seems unlikely in our lifetimes.)

As Rich points out, Murdoch has many tools at his disposal in order to get his way or to prevent others from blocking his plans.
One classic example occurred in 1995, after the Federal Communications Commission questioned whether Murdoch had misled it in 1985, when News Corp., then based in Australia, secured Fox broadcast licenses despite a federal law limiting foreign ownership of local stations to 25 percent. The matter died soon after the News Corp. book division HarperCollins offered the then–Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, a $4.5 million advance. True to form, Murdoch claimed to have no idea that the book deal was ever in the works—even though he conceded having met with Gingrich just a few weeks earlier to discuss the FCC inquiry.
And there’s no question that all these convoluted relationships have their effect. Murdoch’s penchant for interference in news reporting at Fox News is well-known and barely hidden. As one anonymous Fox News employee explained Robert Greenwald film, Outfoxed:
I think that if you don’t go along with the mindset of the hierarchy in New York, if you challenge them on their attitudes about things, you’re history.
And another unnamed source says:
You’re either one of us or one of them, and in leaving Fox News, for example, there were a number of people at the organization, at the head of the organization, tried to ruin my career simply because I was leaving, because I didn’t leave on their terms, because I refused to sign a confidentiality agreement, that was another reason for them to try to keep me from getting my next job.
That sort of vindictiveness should surprise nobody. It’s only a mild form of what they generally do to people or organizations that they target.

It doesn’t stop there. Inciting violence is also fairly common and Fox News’ brand of vigilantism has been implicated in at least one murder and various death threats aimed at their targets. When a then-employee of Fox News, Glenn Beck often crossed that line. O’Reilly has been implicated in inciting the murder of a doctor who performed abortions. Fox Nation, the online face of Fox News, allows discussions of murder in its comment section and, as one source points out, hosted the open discussion murdering the Occupy protesters and finding it "funny" when an Occupy Oakland protester got hit by a car. 

The line between journalism- such as it is at Fox News- and politics has been turned upside down. Even conservatives pundits would agree that the results are becoming a major headache. 
“Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we’re discovering we work for Fox. And this balance here has been completely reversed. The thing that sustains a strong Fox network is the thing that undermines a strong Republican party."
A very interesting remark, indeed, and perhaps it puts the hopeless Republican battle for the nomination in this year’s election in a different light. Is unhealthy influence of Fox News and Murdoch empire in general in the American political process destroying the Republican party? At one time, Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, Santorum, were all on Fox News payroll. That line-up, the kind of politician that appeals to Murdoch and Roger Ailes, the mentality they have demonstrated, is precisely the problem the Republican party now must face up to

Rants for Ratings
If you watch Fox News for any length of time, you will become accustomed to the false equation between ratings and legitimacy. That idea perhaps provides us with an insight to the real problem at Fox and all of the major media outlets. Despite the often-heard boast that high ratings mean high quality or being “the most respected,” the logic behind this claim is never precisely explained. What do high ratings actually mean?

High ratings show only that, for one reason or another, somebody is enjoying or approves of the content that is being broadcast. Questions about accuracy or respect do not really come into. Audiences may, for example, enjoy watching circus clowns but that doesn’t necessarily mean you have any particular respect - or even wish to have one marry your daughter. Think of the highly-rated show, Jackass, for example. Watching deranged young men doing all manner of embarrassingly silly and often dangerous stunts can be entertaining but nobody could possibly claim - O”Reilly regularly brags of Fox News- that any of them are respected. 

As the great advocate of modern journalism W.T. Stead said back in 1886, in his essay, The Future of Journalism:
Circulation is all very well, and the larger circulation any newspaper has the better for its proprietor; but influence depends not half so much upon quantity as upon the quality of its subscribers. Newspapers with only ten or fifteen thousand circulation have often ten times as much influence as papers with 200,000, the difference being in the character of the readers of the paper. Hence, if the object is to influence the politics of a town, it is better to be read regularly by ten men of the right sort than to circulate a thousand a day among the ordinary news-paper buyers.
Of the right sort? Hmmm..
According to one poll, when asked general questions about current events, such as a few very basic questions about the Arab Spring, respondents who watched Fox News actually did worse than people who watched no news at all. Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson and an analyst for the PublicMind Poll had ths say about the results:.
The results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all.
Data from Nielsen Media Research gives us more information about the average Fox News watcher. A mere 1.38% of Fox News' audience is black with an average age of 65 years old. That’s an average, too. it’s viewers are even older than viewers of Hallmark Channel, Military Channel and Golf Channel. So basically, the average viewer is old, white and uninformed.

And the future isn’t exactly bright. In spite of its high ratings, of the three main cable news networks, Fox News is the only one that went down compared to their ratings in 2010. And a double-digit decline at that. 

Could it be that the viewers are simply dying of old age?

Mirage of the Fox
Fox News loves to hype its ratings advantage but it's helpful to take a closer look at the "hows" and the "whys."  In the article, The Ratings MirageSteve Rendall, writing for Fair and Accuracy in Reporting, points out:
With few exceptions, stories about the media business report a single number for ratings (often expressed two different ways--as "points" or "share"). This number is often presented as if it were the result of a popularity contest or a democratic vote. But it is actually the average number of viewers watching a station or a show in a typical minute, based on Nielsen Media Research's monitoring of thousands of households. 
The average is arrived at by counting viewers every minute. Heavy viewers--those who tune in to a station and linger there--have a greater impact, as they can be counted multiple times as they watch throughout the day. 

When an outlet reports that CNN is trailing Fox , they are almost invariably using this average tally, which Fox has been winning for the past two years. For the year 2003, Nielsen's average daily ratings show Fox beating CNN1.02 million viewers to 665,000. 
But there is another important number collected by Nielsen (though only made available to the firm's clients) that tells another story. This is the "cume," the cumulative total number of viewers who watch a channel for at least six minutes during a given day. Unlike the average ratings number the media usually report, this number gives the same weight to the light viewer, who tunes in for a brief time, as it does to the heavy viewer.  
According to this information,  a heavy viewer is a television in any public area, a waiting room, for instance.
Here's another point.Another blogger uncovered this bit of intrigue:
Last week I was staying at a friends house out on Long Island, and to my dismay, every time we turned on a television set in any room in his huge house with huge flat screen TVs , FOX news came on, it was in fact the de-facto, default start up channel on each and every set!
I was disgusted and made a few calls to the cable operator, Cable Vision, iO, or Optimum, all the same company according to the technician who I eventually got on the line after calling 1-866-541-0548.
SO what I found out was that this cable company remotely rebooted all my friends TV's from their headquarters earlier in the year, and at that same time all customers got a new pre-set start up channel: ... racist, xenophobic, America hating, Obama Bashing piece of sh+t, FOX NEWS!
If the blogger's discovery is true,  then every time a viewer turns on the television (while it is monitored by Nielsen), it would add to the overall "cume." Even if they changed the channel immediately. It could go unnoticed, too, since the ratings are not based on ALL televisions, but just the ones in households Nielsen has chosen to monitor. The rest of us wouldn't notice anything.
It's a interesting theory, and it would explain a lot. 
_________________

In the second part of this post, we will take a closer look at the Fox News rating hype/hoax and we will return to yesteryear with a look at a writer who exposed the dangers of media monopolies back in... 1919.
Postscript:
Here's an interesting clip about the rise of the Ultra- Conservative Media and how it has been allowed to hijack the public forum. (H/T to Media Matters.)